SULTAN ALIMBUSAR P. LIMBONA, petitioner, vs.

CONTE MANGELIN, SALIC ALI,

SALINDATO ALI, PILIMPINAS CONDING, ACMAD TOMAWIS, GERRY TOMAWIS,
JESUS ORTIZ, ANTONIO DELA FUENTE, DIEGO PALOMARES, JR., RAUL
DAGALANGIT, and BIMBO SINSUAT, respondents. G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989
By: Abacajan, Erika Jayne R.

PRINCIPLE: The ARMM is an autonomous government that is under the supervision of the
national government acting through the President (and the Department of Local Government).
An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomous governments of
Mindanao persuades the Court that the central government never committed an act of self-
immolation. Presidential Decree No. 1618, in the first place, mandates that “[t]he President
shall have the power of general supervision and control over Autonomous Regions.” Hence, the
Court assumes jurisdiction.

FACTS: Petitioner, Sultan Alimbusar Limbona, was elected Speaker of the Regional Legislative
Assembly or Batasang Pampook of Central Mindanao (Assembly).
He was then elected speaker of the regional legislative assembly of central Mindanao, composed
of 18 members.

On October 21, 1987 Congressman Datu Guimid Matalam, Chairman of the Committee on
Muslim Affairs of the House of Representatives, invited petitioner in his capacity as Speaker of
the Assembly of Region XII in a consultation/dialogue with local government officials.

Petitioner accepted the invitation and informed the Assembly members through the Assembly
Secretary that there shall be no session in November as his presence was needed in the house
committee hearing of Congress. However, on November 2, 1987, the Assembly held a session in
defiance of the Limbona's advice, where he was unseated from his position.

Petitioner prays that the session's proceedings be declared null and void and be it declared that he
was still the Speaker of the Assembly.

Pending further proceedings of the case, the SC received a resolution from the Assembly
expressly expelling petitioner's membership therefrom on the grounds, among other things:
(1) that the petitioner “had caused to be prepared and signed by him paying the salaries and
emoluments of Odin Abdula, who was considered resigned after filing his Certificate of
Candidacy for Congressmen for the First District of Maguindanao in the last May 11,
elections. . . and nothing in the record of the Assembly will show that any request for
reinstatement by Abdula was ever made . . .” ; (2) that “such action of Mr. Lim bona in paying
Abdula his salaries and emoluments without authority from the Assembly . . . constituted a
usurpation of the power of the Assembly,” ; (3) that the petitioner “had recently caused
withdrawal of so much amount of cash from the Assembly resulting to the non-payment of the
salaries and emoluments of some Assembly”; (4) that he had “filed a case before the Supreme
Court against some members of the Assembly on question which should have been resolved
within the confines of the Assembly,” for which the respondents now submit that the petition had
become “moot and academic.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the so-called autonomous governments of Mindanao, as they are now
constituted, subject to the jurisdiction of the national courts; In other words, what is the extent of
self-government given to the two autonomous governments of Region IX and XII

RATIO DECIDENDI: First, as to the issue of mootness, We therefore order reinstatement, with
the caution that should the past acts of the petitioner indeed warrant his removal, the Assembly is
enjoined, should it still be so minded, to commence proper proceedings therefor in line with the
most elementary requirements of due process. And while it is within the discretion of the
members of the Sanggunian to punish their erring colleagues, their acts are nonetheless subject to
the moderating band of this Court in the event that such discretion is exercised with grave abuse.
It is, to be sure, said that precisely because the Sangguniang Pampook(s) are “autonomous,” the
courts may not rightfully intervene in their affairs, much less strike down their acts. We come,
therefore, to the substantive issue.

The autonomous governments of Mindanao were organized in Regions IX and XII by

Presidential Decree No. 1618 promulgated on July 25, 1979. Among other things, the Decree
established “internal autonomy” in the two regions “[w]ithin the framework of the national
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines and its Constitution,” with
legislative and executive machinery to exercise the powers and responsibilities specified therein.

It requires the autonomous regional governments to “undertake all internal administrative

matters for the respective regions,” except to “act on matters which are within the jurisdiction
and competence of the National Government,” “which include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. National defense and security;
2. Foreign relations;
3. Foreign trade;
4. Currency, monetary affairs, foreign exchange, banking and quasi-banking, and
external borrowing,
5. Disposition, exploration, development, exploitation or utilization of all natural
resources;
6. Air and sea transport
7. Postal matters and telecommunications;
8. Customs and quarantine;
9. Immigration and deportation;
10. Citizenship and naturalization;
11. National economic, social and educational planning; and
12. General auditing.

In relation to the central government, it provides that “[t]he President shall have the power of
general supervision and control over the Autonomous Regions ...”
Now, autonomy is either decentralization of administration or decentralization of power. There is
decentralization of administration when the central government delegates administrative powers
to political subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and in the process to
make local governments “more responsive and accountable,” “and ensure their fullest
development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of
national development and social progress.” At the same time, it relieves the central government
of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it to concentrate on national concerns. The
President exercises “general supervision” over them, but only to “ensure that local affairs are
administered according to law.” He has no control over their acts in the sense that he can
substitute their judgments with his own.

Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an abdication of political power in the
favor of local governments units declare to be autonomous. In that case, the autonomous
government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with minimum intervention from
central authorities. According to a constitutional author, decentralization of power amounts to
“self-immolation,” since in that event, the autonomous government becomes accountable not to
the central authorities but to its constituency.

But the question of whether or not the grant of autonomy Muslim Mindanao under the 1987
Constitution involves, truly, an effort to decentralize power rather than mere administration is a
question foreign to this petition, since what is involved herein is a local government unit
constituted prior to the ratification of the present Constitution. Hence, the Court will not resolve
that controversy now, in this case, since no controversy in fact exists. We will resolve it at the
proper time and in the proper case.

Under the 1987 Constitution, local government units enjoy autonomy in these two senses, thus:

Section 1. The territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines are
the provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. Here shall be autonomous regions in
Muslim Mindanao, and the Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

Sec. 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
xxx xxx xxx

See. 15. Mere shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the
Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing
common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures,
and other relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution and the
national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

An autonomous government that enjoys autonomy of the latter category [CONST. (1987), art. X,
sec. 15.] is subject alone to the decree of the organic act creating it and accepted principles on the
effects and limits of “autonomy.” On the other hand, an autonomous government of the former
class is, as we noted, under the supervision of the national government acting through the
President (and the Department of Local Government). If the Sangguniang Pampook (of Region
XII), then, is autonomous in the latter sense, its acts are, debatably beyond the domain of this
Court in perhaps the same way that the internal acts, say, of the Congress of the Philippines are
beyond our jurisdiction. But if it is autonomous in the former category only, it comes unarguably
under our jurisdiction. An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomous
governments of Mindanao persuades us that they were never meant to exercise autonomy in the
second sense, that is, in which the central government commits an act of self-immolation.
Presidential Decree No. 1618, in the first place, mandates that “[t]he President shall have the
power of general supervision and control over Autonomous Regions.” In the second place, the
Sangguniang Pampook, their legislative arm, is made to discharge chiefly administrative
services.

Hence, we assume jurisdiction. And if we can make an inquiry in the validity of the expulsion in
question, with more reason can we review the petitioner's removal as Speaker.

Briefly, the petitioner assails the legality of his ouster as Speaker on the grounds that: (1) the
Sanggunian, in convening on November 2 and 5, 1987 (for the sole purpose of declaring the
office of the Speaker vacant), did so in violation of the Rules of the Sangguniang Pampook since
the Assembly was then on recess; and (2) assuming that it was valid, his ouster was ineffective
nevertheless for lack of quorum.

Upon the facts presented, we hold that the November 2 and 5, 1987 sessions were invalid. It is
true that under Section 31 of the Region XII Sanggunian Rules, “[s]essions shall not be
suspended or adjourned except by direction of the Sangguniang Pampook,” but it provides
likewise that “the Speaker may, on [sic] his discretion, declare a recess of “short intervals.” Of
course, there is disagreement between the protagonists as to whether or not the recess called by
the petitioner effective November 1 through 15, 1987 is the “recess of short intervals” referred
to; the petitioner says that it is while the respondents insist that, to all intents and purposes, it was
an adjournment and that “recess” as used by their Rules only refers to “a recess when arguments
get heated up so that protagonists in a debate can talk things out informally and obviate
dissenssion [sic] and disunity. The Court agrees with the respondents on this regard, since
clearly, the Rules speak of “short intervals.” Secondly, the Court likewise agrees that the Speaker
could not have validly called a recess since the Assembly had yet to convene on November 1, the
date session opens under the same Rules. Hence, there can be no recess to speak of that could
possibly interrupt any session.

But while this opinion is in accord with the respondents' own, we still invalidate the twin
sessions in question, since at the time the petitioner called the “recess,” it was not a settled matter
whether or not he could. do so. In the second place, the invitation tendered by the Committee on
Muslim Affairs of the House of Representatives provided a plausible reason for the intermission
sought. Thirdly, assuming that a valid recess could not be called, it does not appear that the
respondents called his attention to this mistake. What appears is that instead, they opened the
sessions themselves behind his back in an apparent act of mutiny. Under the circumstances, we
find equity on his side. For this reason, we uphold the “recess” called on the ground of good
faith.

RULING: Yes. An examination of the very Presidential Decree creating the autonomous
governments of Mindanao persuades us that they were never meant to exercise autonomy in the
second sense, that is, in which the central government commits an act of self-immolation.
Presidential Decree No. 1618, in the first place, mandates that “[t]he President shall have the
power of general supervision and control over Autonomous Regions.” Hence, SC assumes
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Sangguniang Pampook,
Region XII, is ENJOINED to (1) REINSTATE the petitioner as Member, Sangguniang
Pampook, Region XII; and (2) REINSTATE him as Speaker thereof. No costs. SO ORDERED.